On a humid Saturday in Trat province, armed forces and diplomats from Thailand and Cambodia sat down at the Barn Talaephu resort in Khlong Yai district to try and turn a tense border chapter into a calmer page. The Regional Border Committee (RBC) meeting — a gathering that reads like a who’s who of border commanders — aimed to tackle landmines, cross-border scam networks and the broader security friction affecting eastern Thailand’s Trat and Chanthaburi provinces.
Representatives included Vice-Admiral Apichart Sapprasert, commander of the Chanthaburi and Trat Border Defence Command, Major General Uy Hieng of Cambodia’s Military Region 3, and Rear Admiral Paraj Ratanajaipan, deputy spokesperson for the Royal Thai Navy. While the mood at the seaside venue had a diplomatic polish, the agenda was anything but breezy.
The big headline from the talks: both sides signed on to implement the outcomes of the General Border Committee’s (GBC) August 7 meeting, including a 13-point ceasefire agreement. That agreement — designed to cool down tensions along disputed stretches of the border — was the first real step toward stability, according to Rear Admiral Paraj. Participants also pledged to keep lines of communication open across all army areas and military regions, a repeated yet necessary refrain for any long-term solution.
But not every item on the table found immediate agreement. Thailand proposed stronger cooperation on two pressing issues: clearing landmines that still pepper parts of the border, and cracking down on cross-border scam networks that prey on vulnerable communities. Both are must-do tasks for local safety and regional trust-building — yet Cambodia’s response so far has been limited.
“During yesterday’s meeting, there was still no response from the Cambodian side on both issues,” Rear Admiral Paraj told reporters, adding that Thailand remains hopeful Cambodia will back demining and anti-scam efforts at the next RBC meeting.
That cautious optimism collided with a clarification from Cambodia’s side. A statement from Prime Minister Hun Manet’s office reminded attendees that the RBC “does not have a mandate to make decisions on demining.” In their view, landmine removal should be handled at the GBC level, or considered only in areas already demarcated or deemed non-disputed — as agreed by the Joint Boundary Commissions (JBC) of the two countries. In short: demining is on the agenda, but the how and when will follow a separate procedural roadmap.
Complicating matters further, the diplomatic theater expanded beyond Trat. Simultaneously, Foreign Minister Maris Sangiampongsa led a delegation of envoys from 33 countries to Sisaket province to inspect areas reportedly affected by Cambodian ordnance and suspected minefields. That high-profile visit underscored how this border tension is not simply a bilateral matter but one with wider diplomatic resonance — and real human stakes.
There’s a pragmatic logic to Thailand’s push. Mines don’t read committee mandates; they remain a deadly legacy long after disputes simmer down. Clearing mines would make border communities safer, facilitate legitimate travel and trade, and remove a persistent source of humanitarian risk. Likewise, tackling scam networks that allegedly operate across the border would protect citizens and restore confidence in cross-border relations.
Yet the procedural argument from Phnom Penh is understandable too. Demining involves land access, liability, and technical steps that usually require clear legal authority and well-mapped boundaries. Cambodia’s point that demining should be tied to demarcated or non-disputed areas — and resolved by the Joint Boundary Commissions — highlights the technical and legal hurdles that must be crossed before boots and bulldozers move in.
For now, both sides at Trat agreed on the basics: adhere to the 13-point ceasefire, keep regular military-to-military communication, and continue diplomatic dialogue. That may sound modest, but in border diplomacy, maintaining contact is often the glue that prevents misunderstandings from escalating into conflict.
Looking ahead, the next RBC meeting is where the rubber will meet the road. Thailand is pushing for concrete cooperation on demining and anti-scam operations; Cambodia appears ready to route the demining question through established boundary commissions. If the two sides can stitch together a phased plan — perhaps starting with joint surveys in clearly demarcated areas and simultaneous law-enforcement cooperation on scam networks — they could turn this fragile détente into a durable, practical arrangement.
In the meantime, the seaside resort’s breezes carried the usual mix of optimism and impatience. Diplomats and commanders arrived with a shared hope: that rules, maps and international norms will guide the next steps. Whether that hope translates into shovels in the ground and joint raids on scammers remains to be seen. For border communities who want nothing more than safe fields and honest livelihoods, the clock is ticking — and both governments know the next RBC meeting will be watched closely.
Whatever happens next, one thing is clear: peace along the Thai–Cambodian border will be less about dramatic declarations and more about steady, technical cooperation — clearing mines, stopping fraud, and mapping borders so civilians can get on with their lives. That may not make for glamorous headlines, but it’s the kind of work that saves lives and builds trust, one careful step at a time.
Good to see some diplomacy, but I worry Thailand keeps giving Cambodia time while villagers still live with mines. Promises on paper mean little when kids play in the fields.
It’s heartbreaking — demining should be urgent, not something to be punted to committees, people are dying now.
Agree with Anna, but committees sometimes mean international money and safety protocols, which aren’t bad if they speed it up rather than stall it.
I appreciate the point about safety, but local communities want shovels and clearance teams now, not more meetings.
Shovels without maps and legal clarity can make things worse; a phased approach with local input might actually be faster and safer.
Stop pretending this is just about mines — those scam networks are ruining people’s lives and might be financing armed groups across borders.
Scam networks are criminal problem, yes, but accusing them of funding armies is a leap; show me evidence before we start cross-border raids.
Evidence exists in prosecutions and intercepted funds, but often it’s buried in bureaucracy. Joint police operations could be effective if both sides want them.
I read the prosecutor briefs — there are patterns of money flows. If governments hide behind sovereignty, the crooks win.
The legal distinction Cambodia raises about demining jurisdiction is not just bureaucratic hair-splitting; demining requires clear legal access and liability frameworks.
Exactly. For successful demining you need geospatial data, legal agreements, and verification protocols. Rushing without that risks tragedies and diplomatic crises.
But how many more children must be maimed waiting for perfect paperwork? There has to be a middle ground: humanitarian corridors for demining teams.
Humanitarian corridors could work if both sides sign temporary access accords; that still preserves legal order while addressing immediate danger.
Local farmers here feel trapped: market access blocked, fear of mines, plus scammers calling and pretending to be officials. It’s like being squeezed from every side.
That’s the human cost rarely shown in high-level statements. Trade stops, kids miss school, and the social fabric frays.
Exactly. Sometimes I think both governments need to spend one week living in a border village to understand the urgency.
Empathy is good but training local volunteer demining spotters and community-based anti-scam education can be practical short-term moves.
Why is this taking so long? If it were happening in my neighborhood they’d clear mines in a week.
Not so fast — mines are complex, and mistakes cost lives. Your impatience is understandable but technical caution matters.
I know mistakes are dangerous, but the current pace is also dangerous. Balance, please.
The ceasefire is progress but usually these 13-point deals are fragile; enforcement and transparency will decide whether it lasts.
Transparency? Good luck — military-to-military talks are often secretive, and civilians rarely get the full picture.
Which is why civil society monitoring and local media need access. Silence breeds rumor and escalation.
International attention from 33 envoys may help, but external pressure can also harden positions. Diplomacy needs finesse.
Sometimes outside eyes speed up action — donors and technical experts can provide equipment for safe demining if both parties agree.
As a former border official I can say joint surveys in demarcated areas are realistic first steps; non-demarcated zones are legal nightmares.
Legal nightmares don’t stop ordnance from exploding though. Pragmatic, well-supervised surveys should be allowed even in disputed strips.
Surveys with GPS tagging and observers from both sides could reduce risk and build trust without prejudicing claims.
I worry anti-scam plans could be used as a pretext for heavy-handed policing or targeting certain communities; safeguards are needed.
Are we seriously debating process while ambulances still run over mines? The JBC talk sounds like lawyers winning over medics.
Legal clarity prevents later diplomatic fallout. You can’t clear everything without knowing who owns the land or who pays for mistakes.
If the cost of saving a life is a temporary admission of uncertainty, so be it. I’m tired of red tape killing people.
Someone should track the scammers’ phone towers and payment routes; a targeted financial blockade might cripple the rings quickly.
Good idea but cross-border telecom regs and encryption complicate that. Still, fintech tracing has worked in other regions.
This is a textbook case in conflict transformation: combine immediate humanitarian action with long-term boundary resolution to stabilize the region.
Border people are tired of geopolitics. They want to farm and trade. Politicians treat the border like chess pieces while villagers suffer.
Hun Manet’s office is correct legally, but politics always finds ways around law when lives are at stake. Pressure matters.
Also note: mine clearance without environmental assessment can cause crop contamination; experts should coordinate with farmers and ecologists.
So many people focus on blame. I’d rather see a plan: immediate surveys, safe corridors, joint anti-scam taskforce, then demarcation follow-up.
Community-led monitoring combined with international technical teams could bridge the trust gap and signal good faith on both sides.
Education campaigns against scams are cheap and fast; empower local schools and temples to teach people how to spot fraud.
And document everything. Paper trails and GPS records will prevent later accusations and help compensation claims if accidents happen.
Documentation also helps donor confidence, which might unlock funds for demining and victim assistance.
I keep coming back because people on the ground need voices in these threads — hope someone from the RBC reads this.
They probably do read, but they need loud, repeated pressure. Keep posting testimonies and photos, responsibly of course.
Military communication lines staying open is promising but insufficient — there must be accountability when ceasefire violations occur.
Accountability requires neutral monitors. Maybe invite ASEAN or UN observers to patrol the most contested spots.
I fear demining tied to demarcation will be used to delay until political winds change. Make a clear humanitarian exception now.
If international groups are invited, will they prioritize people or politics? I’ve seen aid used as leverage before.
One last thought: if the next RBC doesn’t commit to joint field surveys in clear zones, this will be another year of fear for border families.
That’s the real deadline — the next meeting. If words aren’t matched by boots on the ground for surveys, frustration will grow and risk spikes.